LAC 123 EQUITY AND TRUST I

TUTORIAL QUESTIONS

Week 1
1. Equity relates to fairness and justice in law. Discuss.

2. Istihsan is not similar to equity. Debate.

Week 2
3. Equity emerged from the defects of common law systems. Comment.

4. Examine the introduction of Judicature Acts 1873-1875 had profound legal

effects on the developments of equity in English law.

5. Analyse the rule 'an agreement for a lease is as good as a lease’ as elucidated
in Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882).

6. In Principles of Equity (1902), Ashburner has once said: ‘…[B]ut the two
streams of jurisdiction, through they run in the same channel, run side by side
and do not mingle their waters.’ Comment.

Week 3
7. Evaluate the interpretation of judges in relation to the reception of English
equity in the Straits Settlement and Malay States.

8. The reception of equity in Malaysia is subject to the limitations provided in

section 3 of the Civil Law Act 1956. Discuss.

Week 4
9. What is the
10. Examine the applications of the equitable maxims:

(a) ‘Equity acts in personam’

(b) ‘Equity is equality’

(c) ‘He who comes to equity must come with clean hands’

(d) ‘Where equity are equal the first in time prevails’.

(e) ‘Equity follows the law’

 11. Write a case comment:
(a) Measures Brothers limited v. Measures [1910] 2 CH 248

(b) Chellaram v. Chellaram [1985] 1 All ER 1043

(c) H.L. Bannerji v. Chin Cheng Realty (Pte.) Ltd. [1983] 2 MLJ 18

(d) Lim Kit Siang v. United Engineers (M) Bhd & 3 Ors [1988] 1 MLJ 35

(e) Chettiar v. Chettiar [1962] 1 MLJ 143

(f) Margaret Chua v. Ho Swee Kiew & Ors [1961] 1 MLJ 173

(g) Emilia Shipping inc v. State Enterprise For Pulp & Paper Industries [1991] 2
MLJ 379

(h) Chapel v. Times Newspaper [1975] 2 All ER 233

Week 5/6
12. Pending registration of a land, parties are entitled to equitable rights. Explain.

13. Seripah is a widow blessed with three sons and two daughters. Her husband
had passed away ten years ago, leaving her with 3 acres of land. Among
them, Seripah is most fond of Fendi, the youngest son. She has once asked
Fendi to build a house on half acre of the land adjacent to their family house.
She wrote a gift deed in his favour, but it was never registered. One year later,
Seripah was involved in a fatal accident. The land title on which the house
was built remained under Seripah’s name. Fendi was confused whether he
had rights over the land. The other heirs also claimed the land or
compensation in lieu thereof. Advise all the parties involved.

14. Compare and contrast the decisions of UMW Industries v. Ah Fook and
Malayawata Steel Sdn Bhd v. Government of Malaysia & Anor.

15. Don entered into a tenancy agreement for a piece of land with Din, who was
allowed to erect a wooden shed on the land. Upon Din’s death, Dina was
recognised a lawful tenant. When the terms of tenancy expires, Dol gave
notice to Dina to vacate the land. Dina refused to vacate the land taking up
the defence of tenancy coupled with equity. Could Dol succeed in ejecting
Dina from the land? Discuss.

Week 7
16. Examine the principles of promissory estoppel in Central London Property
Trust Ltd. v. High Trees House Ltd. [1947] 1 KB 130
 17. Review the case-laws:
(a) Combe v. Combe [1951] 2 KB 215

(b) Ramsden v. Dyson & Thornton (1866) LR 1 HL 129

(c) Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corp (M) Bhd v Hapsah Food Industries Sdn
Bhd & Ors and another action [2012] 1 MLJ 115

Week 8 (PBL)
18. Dato’ Latiff Zain is a famous business figure in Malaysian music industry.
Besides doing business, he is also known as a song composer. As the owner of
Sumbang Lagumu Records (SLR), Dato’ Latiff had produced songs of various
genres and local artists, including Hafizun, Faizol Taher and Siti Nurhalizah.
During the MTV Awards Night at Genting Highlands, Dato’ Latif met Miss
Kronikan, a rising Malay star. Since then, they had become intimate. In fact,
Dato’ Latif had offered to compose B a ballad song. He was also wiling to be
her mentor and groomed her to be a recording artist should she agreed to
marry him. Miss Kronikan was so delighted to hear Dato’ Latiff’s proposal.
Miss Kronikan however does have any love feelings towards him. Instead she
was only keen about Dato’ Latiff’s wealth. Her intention to win Dato’ Latif’s
heart for his property was later communicated to Miss Kepochiew.

19. However, she does not love Dato’ A and only have an interest on Dato’ A’s
property. She had told her best friend Miss C the true intention that she
actually got closed to Dato’ A because she desired to get his property and
wanted to be famous. A year later, Miss B had declared her willingness to
marry Dato’ A provided that Dato’ A had agreed to sell SLR to her and will
train her to become a famous singer. Due to his love to Miss B, Dato’ A had
agreed. They had entered into an agreement to sell SLR to Miss B at only RM
200k. Miss B without further delay had sold her house at Desa Anggerik in
order to pay the money to Dato’ A. However, later Dato’ A had discovered
the true story from Miss C, thus he refused to marry her and immediately had
cancelled the sale and purchase agreement. Dato’ A contended that there
was fraud in the agreement and undue influence on the part of Miss B. Dato’
A also declined to become a mentor to Miss B. Miss B dissatisfied with Dato’
A’s decision. She had lost her house and also an opportunity to become an
artist. In her defence she claimed that she had actually fallen in love with
Dato’ A just recently and the story that she had told to Miss C was far a year
ago. Thus, she applied to the court for specific performance and also
remedies for breach of contract.
Week 9 - Interlocutory injunctions
20. Evaluate the extent to which American Cynamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd (1975) AC
396 has been applied in the Malaysian courts.

Week 10
21. Discuss the application of mareva injunction in the following case-laws:
(a) Nippon Yusen Kaisha v. Karageorgis (1975) 3 All ER 282

(b) Aspatra Sdn. Bhd. & 21 Ors. (1988) 1 MLJ 97

(c) Zaitun Marketing Sdn Bhd v Boustead Eldred Sdn Bhd (formerly known as
Boustead Trading (1985) Sdn Bhd) [2010] 2 MLJ 749

(d) GS Gill Sdn Bhd v Descente Ltd [2010] 4 MLJ 609

Week 11
22. Evaluate the extent to which Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Processes Ltd.
(1976) Ch 55 has been applied in the Malaysian courts.

Week 12
23. Discuss the relevant case laws in relation to the statutory applications of
rescission, rectification and cancellation.